Superhero Movies

[Seil]

Now I'm a comic book fan - I am. I love heroes, fighting for truth, Justice and the Canadian way... That being said, there's been a lot of trashy cash-ins to fool kids into buying the merchandise of a terrible TV show. But recently, superhero media has gotten a whole lot better

EVIDENCE

Batman Begins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQjE7Va9pM)
The Dark Knight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jqq4j52Fb4)
Iron Man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIFaeqwES1Y)
Iron Man 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siQgD9qOhRs)
The Incredible Hulk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pog1CbcVBJk&feature=related)

So what prompted the success of these movies after so much schlock? Do we love these character so much we want to see them given justice, like they've given justice to so many others? Do we repect the big-name actors and large special effects budgets? Or are we just a couple of Joes - or Janes - filling seats with asses?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

People will go see movies with these names on them. End of story.
There is no secret to their success.

[Azisien]

People will go see movies with these names on them. End of story.
There is no secret to their success.

I don't think it is so simple. I agree this explains any Marvel/well known movie's modest success, but not super-success.

I for one like them for the nice special effects and generally decent acting. It would be quite insane to equate Nolan's Batman to that shit that went down with George Clooney, and their commercial success shows that.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well the newer ones moved more tickets because they were (arguably) better but they still had a large built in audience already, and when you give that built in audience something competent they going to go batshit insane over it especially afgter being used to some films that were worse quality.

[tacticslion]

I don't think it is so simple. I agree this explains any Marvel/well known movie's modest success, but not super-success.

I for one like them for the nice special effects and generally decent acting. It would be quite insane to equate Nolan's Batman to that shit that went down with George Clooney, and their commercial success shows that.

Also, the writing treats the subject matter as something (somewhat) seriously and, more importantly, moderately realistic. Even in the midst of the humor and silliness that was all in good fun of Iron Man (I've yet to see 2), Tony was a real person - he had good traits and flaws, and had personal struggles and joys. The superhero part was fun, there were elements that were funny, but it was serious at the same time - it wasn't corn-ball, unlike George's Batman movie, for example. Really, George was a pretty good actor... but his dialogue was often rubbish (as were those around him). It wasn't taken seriously in the writing, and that reflected poorly on screen (and in reception). Even sometimes when it is taken seriously ala Captain (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2010/02/08/captain-america-review/) America (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2010/02/09/captain-america-2-death-too-soon-review/) the writer will miss the essence of how humans really think, will miss what makes something actually heroic, and what makes something truly exciting. If any of these are missing the mark badly enough - and it's easy to do in writing - a movie will fail, badly. The primary ingredient, however, is the making things exciting. So, it really boils down to well-made movies (and television) and poorly made movies (and television).

Also, unless it's really "low-grade" super powers (aka, not uber-flashy) then please, please don't make it for live television. Powers that work best are those that mostly affect the self and allow the actor to behave normally on-screen.

Some examples:
Super-strength? Okay, but be careful with it - there's only so much believability we can have, and remember that super-strength doesn't tranfer tensile-strength to the object being moved. Teleportation? Doable (it's one of the effects I think the old Hercules tv show pulled off rather well), but again, it's limitations need to be clear. Telekinesis? No. Most energy-based stuff? Absolutely not. Flying and wall-crawling: right out! Generally, if it can't be done convincingly by a magician, don't try it in television - technology just isn't that good yet, even if it is impressive.

Movies have more leeway with this (higher budget), but they, too, are limited in what they can portray. Cartoons: go for it!

EDIT:
when you give that ... audience something competent ...

This, more than this...

Well the newer ones ... had a large built in audience already...

The "Large" built-in audience being those same people who watched Cloony Batman? I've often found the axiom once bitten, twice shy. People didn't trust comic book movies before Spider Man came along because they were mostly crap. Superman (the original) and Superman II, and Batman (with Jack Nicholson as the Joker) each temporarily revived the genre, because they were good movies. Superman killed it with III and IV, however, and Batman with ~ Returns and all the other sequels. Nothing until Spiderman actually rekindled any confidence. Generally audiences stayed away, even the comic fans. Spiderman gave a pretty decent movie and then the audience factor kicked in. Because it was good (enough) people accepted it and made it good. Using the "built-in" audience is a worthless point - all films have a "built-in" audience that they target towards, and then rise or fall based on how good it is. If it was just the large built-in audience, they would see the movie regardless of its quality. It's actually about compatent film-making.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

If it was just the large built-in audience, they would see the movie regardless of its quality. It's actually about compatent film-making.

They do. Batman and Robin sold a lot of tickets. It's a matter of whether they see it twice.
And it's not so much abotu competent film making ,it's about what the comic book audience expects. Good superhero movies have been made, Batman was better than Batman Begins, Ang Lee's Hullk was better than the newer one, but these both weren't anywhere near as successful. It is more that film studios have hit onto a succesful formula of the kind of movie comic book fans want to see than any sudden increase in competence.
Sure there was things like Batman and Robin but they weren't all bad.

[Osterbaum]

Batman & Robin wasn't all bad?

[Azisien]

They do. Batman and Robin sold a lot of tickets. It's a matter of whether they see it twice.
And it's not so much abotu competent film making ,it's about what the comic book audience expects. Good superhero movies have been made, Batman was better than Batman Begins, Ang Lee's Hullk was better than the newer one, but these both weren't anywhere near as successful. It is more that film studios have hit onto a succesful formula of the kind of movie comic book fans want to see than any sudden increase in competence.
Sure there was things like Batman and Robin but they weren't all bad.

Multi-week movie success doesn't rely solely on these magical built-in audiences seeing things multiple times. Yes, that's a factor, but it's probably more word of mouth. Someone, or rather, a lot of people, see Batman and Robin and think it's shit. The movie does ok, but not as well as a Batman movie should. Conversely, someone sees The Dark Knight and recommends it to EVERYONE. People they go to school with, work with, chat online with, etc. This spreads, the movie gets good critical reviews, it eventually gets more people to go to it over the latest Kate Hudson movie.

We can debate the merits of the equally competent superhero movies all day I guess. I didn't think the 1989 Batman was better than Batman Begins, and I'm not even really into comic books so I don't really fit a "comic book fan" mould either. We can agree on both not being Batman and Robin, though!

Ice party!!

[Seil]

Hopw long has it been since we linked this? Like... a week? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNaDZIrxh-0)

But Uma Thurman - who is a pretty good actor - sorta ham-fisted every line she was given. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1J_1lAu_IU)

And they changed Bane from a highly intelligent and strategic thinker, and turned him into Ivy's muscle. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ac-6xzxlk)

Besides the fact that every shot was almost entirely black with flashy neon colors. It was a terrible movie, what are you talkin' about BHS?

[tacticslion]

It was a terrible movie, what are you talkin' about BHS?

No, no, no. You guys don't get it yet?

None of my posts are ever serious. Ever. Fully 90% of everything I post is drunken. and also If it helps I'm a good way through a bottle of whiskey. is what he's thinking.

[Magus]

He said the 1989 Batman was better than Batman Begins but didn't make as much. What he's ignoring is that it still made a ton of money. There are elements of Burton's Batman that I enjoyed better than Nolan's but overall I like Nolan's better, myself, but there are arguments to be made.

Hulk being better than The Incredible Hulk, though, I don't think has any arguments to be made at all, so refer back to

None of my posts are ever serious. Ever. Fully 90% of everything I post is drunken.

There was maybe a deeper dramatic depth to Hulk's story but the story was so outlandish that the involvement of his Banner's father and the insanity it entailed didn't really help things.

I think we can all agree that Elektra was terrible, anyway.

[Hanuman]

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/carls064/freealonzo/watchmen_smiley.gif

Nuff said?

[Magus]

What are you saying?

[P-Sleazy]

That watchmen beat all these movies?

[Archbio]

That watchmen beat all these movies?

The problem is that the movie Watchmen would try and beat the other movies using the song Eat to the Beat for the soundtrack and (with blood gushing) in slow motion.

[Magus]

Despite its flaws Watchmen is still a pretty good adaptation...I'd put it at fourth or fifth on a list of superhero movies...too bad Jackie Earle Haley only gets to star in Nightmare on Elm Street remakes, I can see his career plummeting, unfortunately, unless he picks up something great next...

[Nique]

Iron Man 2 was not a good sequel. It is still better than 'Hulk' and most of any part of the Fantastic Four or Spider-man movies though.

No one is mentioning Superman Returns. I thought it was just as good as Batman Begins. Am I wrong?

[The Sevenshot Kid]

No one is mentioning Superman Returns. I thought it was just as good as Batman Begins. Am I wrong?
You are not alone in thinking that.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

He said the 1989 Batman was better than Batman Begins but didn't make as much. What he's ignoring is that it still made a ton of money. There are elements of Burton's Batman that I enjoyed better than Nolan's but overall I like Nolan's better, myself, but there are arguments to be made.
But then again, Batman and Robin made a good chunk of money too. Which is my point. These films make money regardless of quality.
And there was only one good thing about Nolan's Batman and that was Katie Holmes nipples. The question is is it better than Batman and Robin? Yes but I had to think about it.


Hulk being better than The Incredible Hulk, though, I don't think has any arguments to be made at all, so refer back to



There was maybe a deeper dramatic depth to Hulk's story but the story was so outlandish that the involvement of his Banner's father and the insanity it entailed didn't really help things.
Your talking about a scientist who turns into a giant green monster when he gets angry. Trying to sell that seriously is foolish.

I think we can all agree that Elektra was terrible, anyway.
I haven't seen it but I heard good things!


As for superman returns, I just found it really flat and boring and I used to watch a lot of Ozu and Jamusch who pretty much set out to make boring films. The characters were all just MOR and nothing really happened. It was competent but that didn't help because there was no horribly bad moments to laugh at.

[Optimis Prime]

Despite its flaws Watchmen is still a pretty good adaptation...I'd put it at fourth or fifth on a list of superhero movies...too bad Jackie Earle Haley only gets to star in Nightmare on Elm Street remakes, I can see his career plummeting, unfortunately, unless he picks up something great next...

Woah there, A Nightmare On Elm Street wasn't that bad. It could have been better but unlike most remakes of old horror movies it didn't shit all over the original.

I haven't seen Iron Man 2, but I heard it's good and it looks pretty cool.

Captain America is coming up starring what's his name who played the Human Torch and Jensen from The Losers. Depending on how they do Captain America it could be good as the actor was awesome in The Losers.

[Magus]

The main reason to hate Superman Returns is they gave Superman a son. It's really not that bad a movie except that it was extremely "meh" and Luthor's evil plan had a million plot holes in it (WHO WANTS TO LIVE ON A CRYSTAL ROCK THING AND WHO IS HE GOING TO SELL IT TO WHEN EVERYONE'S DEAD?). It just totally lacked excitement or interest for some reason. It's difficult to point out exactly one element that failed, it was just the combination of everything that came together to make everyone go "blah". It had an impressive finale but that was it.